Forum:Concerning battle articles
Going through the battle pages I noticed that most are very factual about the timeline. This simply isn’t a loud and when I think about it what’s the point in all these articles? They contain massive spoilers for people who haven’t played the game and they don’t really provide any info on the universe of Zelda. If someone wants to find out about the story of a game let them do it the proper way by playing the game. Besides we already have an abridged version of the story on the games main pages. basically what I am proposing is to either remove these articles or rewrite them so that they are non factual about the time line. Votes for removing battle articles : : I have always thought these were pointless. I am fine with the War articles being here, but the battles are simply fanfiction, and do not belong on an encyclopedia; there is a Zelda fanon, for a reason. Most of the information in these articles can be found in various other articles in a more clear, encyclopedic way anyway. I know this is a tough issue that will never have everyone thinking the same way, but I suppose that is why a vote is in order. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 14:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC) : :Yeah, the incompleteness of this bothers me. There is only them on OoT WW TP and MM. Other than that, its like nothing. Remove em. For all we know, TP is first :/ UberPhoeb 16:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC) : : Yeah, I've never really liked these. They rely too heavily on our "Timeline," which, as logical as it may seem, is not fact and as such, should not be treated as fact. All they really do anyway is tell the story of the game, which is taken care of by the game articles as Oni said. I'm not too fond of the War articles either though.—'Triforce' 14 17:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC) : : The dungeon articles have a story/spoiler section for those who do want a little more in-depth so i don't see why a whole story-telling walkthrough is necessary. I feel sorry for those who put a lot of effort into these battle articles, but they are pretty much useless and are totally fanfiction, not facts. Katamariqueen (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC) : : Fanon goes to Fanon Wiki. --'Bek' (talk) 20:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC) : :the battles are too open to interpretation (i.e., the way people interpret Link's facial reactions.}} Not only that, but they do seem a bit fanon-ish. --[[User:Moblin slayer|'Moblin']] [[User talk:Moblin slayer|''Slayer]] 21:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC) : : Placed in the Wrong wiki I bieleve ZF wiki is better--Power courage wisdom and time (talk) 00:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC) : : This isn't exactly "fanfiction" per se as everyone is saying, but it's still based entirely on one's views and opinions on the Legend of Zelda Universe (namely Hero of Time 87's). Also, we don't really need stuff like that on this wiki in the first place. All we need is a short summary on the given game's page. 'Xykeb' 'Yvolix' ''' '' 03:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC) : : I love stories. But let's tell them in some other place. Besides, I wouldn't call a whole trek through a temple a "battle" or a "war" per se, when I think of looking for that one room with the spare small key, it doesn't strike me as a "war" with "commanders/generals" like Morpha and Link or whatever. Portal-Kombat : : Can they even be called battles? To me, quite a few of 'em just seem like minor duels (sometimes with more than 2 combatants) or something. Diachronos (talk) 09:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC) : : stop the war! and if you cant do that then stop the battle! (is dragged of the stage) Oni Dark Link 10:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC) : : Mr kmil : :I say remove 'em Green hat (talk) 16:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)Mr.Green hat : :The battle articles are redundant; all the information in them can be found in their respective game articles, and without the theoretical embellishments, to boot. (I think we should keep the war articles, however.) Jedimasterlink : : Most of these articles are just romancicized versions of the dungeons and events in the games. Most of them aren't even noteworthy. I say we give them the axe. Sincerely, Watcher. : : I think that we should definitely keep the actual, like, official events, such as the Hyrulean Civil War and the Great Flood, which are obviously factual, no matter what we do to the rest of the wars. As for the battles... worthless. The information should be moved to their respective dungeon articles, then deleted. [[User:Lisa URAQT|'''Lisa]] [[User talk:Lisa URAQT|'UR']][[User:Lisa URAQT/Journal|'A']] Votes for rewriting battle articles : : Battle articles are fun to write, and, if they tell their story correctly can be very helpful to people, I think. If we got rid of all of the spoiler information for stories, then this would just be an advanced version of GameFaqs. Fine, get rid of the timeline reliance, but if the stories of the "battles" are told in a good way, then a person can learn the story behind some zelda games that may be somewhat difficult to find, or that they simply don't have the time to play. Even though merging the battle articles with their dungeon's pages, may not be a bad idea either. Dialask77 Ice Wizard 19:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC) : : At least rewrite them so it is less confusing, and remove the ones that are about a dungeon or something that is irrelevant. If you have to delete some, at least leave the Great Cataclysm article. ReddFighter (talk) 06:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC) Votes for keeping the battle articles : : This is a great way to explain the timeline for Zelda games! Twilightwizard0309 (talk) 10:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC) : : That's exactly the problem. In no way is the timeline official, and these shouldn't be reliant upon them.—'Triforce' 14 14:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC) : : They're fun to edit and make and quite frankly good way to kill time. Also containing the spoilers is a completely and utterly pointless reason to support the removal because this site is chock full of spoilers. If users don't want to see spoilers they wouldn't be looking at this site or if they don't want spoilers for games they haven't played yet, they wouldn't be looking at those pages. --Flashpenny (talk) 02:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC) Comments If we're keeping the war articles, we have to go through them and remove timeline references correct?—'Triforce' 14 03:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC) I am pretty confused over the war articles. If this vote ends up being delete, should we keep all the wars, or only the ones that are officially named, i.e. Impriosoning War, Great Flood (not really a war but okay), Hyrule Civil War, etc.? --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 03:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC) id say so. get rid of the ones like Salvation of Termina and the War of the Wizard. Oni Dark Link 11:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC) All that work on war of the Wizard Battle articles for naught... Dialask77 Ice Wizard 17:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC) Well, it is a wiki. You knew what you were getting into when you first contributed. Stuff gets changed, removed, added, et al.--'Bek' (talk) 20:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)